[stormlord]

http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~jhsu/everquest/eq.html

As predicted weeks ago, my close friend Talorien Treantfist has won the Test of Steel on Veeshan. Weeks and weeks of predictable statements, and all were true. Why you may ask? The answer is quite simple, Talorien is a Monk.

For a year, the great debate has been discussed about the true roles of the Warrior and Monk in relation to each other, as well as what changes should be made if at all. At first, both sides had their share of agitators for change, as well as a verbal portion who advocated the status quo. With time, came the "Warrior's" patch, which granted additional hit points, innate magic resistance, and critical hits. Eventually the "Feign Death" patch came in, further reducing the convenience of Feign Death. The stances changed, but the positions are the same, some advocate change, some advocate the new status quo.

But what was it that allowed Talorien to win? Was it the rules of the contest? No armor allowed, and only a fine steel weapon in your hands? Obviously these rules are extremely biased towards Monks. They have the highest Defense skill caps of any class, in addition to have an innate AC bonus for being a Monk. Naked, a Monk has a greater proportion of his armored AC than any other class, and their AC's are among the highest in Norrath, ranking even with Warriors (full suits of Cobalt have yet to be compared). Additionally, their 1H blunt skills have the highest cap in Norrath, ending at a respectable 240 before level 50. The last thing that clinched it was Talorien was level 48, the highest level allowed in his level 40-48 bracket. Clearly victory was his alone as the sole level 48 Monk participating.

But was it the rules that allowed him victory? Or does the spectre class imbalance raise itself again? A few days before the Test of Steel (even before the Robe of the Lost Circle was upgraded), Talorien tested the waters by dueling various level 50+ Warriors while on a Plane of Hate run. The results are suprising. Against a level 53 Warrior named "Blanky", dressed in a suit of Cobalt, Indicolite, and some Crafted (I have not been able to contact him and ask how much), wielding a Jasarth Trident and a Springwood Club, Talorien won three out of three times, two of which with 3 bars of life remaining. At level 47. Obviously, something is quite wrong, for Blanky can hardly be considered poorly equipped.

Verant has always said that PvP prowess was no indication of class balance, in addition, there is group usefulness, and solo'ing ability. But the point remains, is this really fair? Warriors may claim to be the "tanks par excellance", but the claim is far from proven with comparable hybrid AC and hit points, in addition to superior Monk AC. Monks may claim partial titles in all three applications, being indespensible within certain zones or runs, in addition to being extremely able to solo. The verdict lies in Verant's court now that the results are out.

Note it was posted In June 2000.

I was surprised about it saying monks can solo. I remember 1999 as brutally unforgiving (insert sarcasm). :0

Posted this about warriors:

First of all, Gordon states that Warriors rank "third" in overall melee damage. What may not be obvious is how far behind do Warriors lag behind? Do they deal out 1 dmg for a Monk/Rogue's every 10, or do they deal out 9? The statement Warriors are in "third" means nothing. If Rogues and Monks deal out 1000 damage a second, but Warriors only deal out 10 a second, with hybrids dealing out 9 a second, Gordon's statement would still be true. Look, Warriors are in third place, with hybrids behind in 4th. This theoritical situation is obviously unbalanced, but Gordon's vaccuous statement is still true.

Secondly, Gordon states that Warriors have the highest AC than any other class. If anyone has ever seen a screenshot of a Monk at level 50 before Kunark, you might have noticed their AC is above 1000, where as before, Warriors could not even touch 1000. As for hit points, a Monk typically has 66% of the hit points a Warrior does. Add in Mend and at any given 6 minute interval, a Monk can have up to 83% of a Warrior's hit points. In other words, Monks have higher AC, 83% of the hit points, and do more damage than a Warrior. Sounds balanced to me!

Thirdly, Gordon states that "Only if they don't have healer support. If they do, which they always should ...". Does Gordon blindly expect every player of EverQuest to not only know this of the Warrior class the moment they begin play, but that even those who accept this can only live a life with a dedicated partner? Gordon has effectively stated that Warriors have no existence without a healer.

Gordon has always said that versatility must be balanced with group usefulness. Offensive power, defensive power, solo'ing ability, all must be considered. Consider this, Monks have higher AC's than Warriors for the great majority of the game (at least until level 50), effectively have 83% of the hit points of a Warrior, do well over 125% of the damage of an equal appropriately equipped Warrior, and have numerous group useful abilities (i.e. Feign pull, self heal, etc.). Sound balanced?

As a 54 Warrior I see the ONLY place that warriors are "powerful" is in groups, and while we are better than other classes in that aspect we are NO WHERE near as balanced in the solo/small group aspects that make the "balance" of Versatility playable.

This is as intended. Warriors weren't designed for solo play, so weren't "balanced" in that respect. A warrior is always expected to be in a group of some kind.

(please read outside of the bold text, i bolded things kind of randomly)

These points underline the factt hat monks should b able to solo better than warriors (got mend & high defense). Interesting read.